@noah_claypole @big_g I think forceably shifting everyone onto a CFC WEF 1 Apr could be legally dodgy; but only if it were proved that remunerated CFAVs are employees not volunteers (I am not advocating this however)
There was a case in 2011 where an ACF AI tried to use DDA95 to establish his employment, but it failed on a technical point of law in respect of the specifics of the claim. I think this was the first warning shot for MOD; and note the timing, this was during DYER which first recommended what is now the CFC.
I am not a lawyer, however, as an interested layman I could take an educated punt that - had the case been based on s212 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and had the claimant argued that the payment of what is now VA created a mutuality of obligation (ie you must do 8hrs duty - or "work" - to be paid; and conversely, when doing 8hrs eligible duty - "work" - the MOD must pay you, arguably creating a contractual mutuality of obligation) the outcome could have been very different.
The EAT judgement in question alludes to this, if you look carefully; and s212 of ERA96 allows period of "unemployment" to count as continuity of service by arrangement & custom - ie short term, but regular "contracts"; whether supported by a physical contract or not. This is important as continuity of service leads to the relevant employment rights.
If I were in the dock, I would suggest that the conditions of payment of VA (an agreed payment for 8hrs work) represents a mutuality of obligation during the period of that "contract". s212 of ERA96 then provides for continuity of service since 28-51 days "work" are spread throughout the year (year on year); thus conferring rights of employment, plus the fact that the payment is for a service performed (ie work), not a reimbursement of expenses (a la Chaudri).
So... if that were correct, and could be proved legally, there may be legal grounds for challenging a mass transfer to the CFC. However, since engagements - and thus, arguably, any contractual obligations - are relinquished on expiry, the likelihood is that; if you wanted to continue playing the game, you would have to re-engage on new the terms ...so lots of dramas for little gain (1-5yrs) if any (you might find HM no longer required your services on reengagement!)
As such, my jury is firmly out. I suspect - if there were to be a mass transfer come 1 Apr - the majority would acquiesce and/or crack on for the good of the Corps.
EDIT - maybe not!! Seems the 8hrs duty issue has already been found not to provide mutuality of obligation http://www.elyplace.com/docs/news/Bray-judgment-volunteers.pdf
How does a zero-hours contract provide legal mutuality of obligation?...